Who Defines "Your" in the Phrase, "Jury of Your Peers?"

As many of you have already heard, Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old resident of Sanford, FL, was killed on February 26, 2012 after an altercation with the head of the neighborhood watch, George Zimmerman. While I wasn’t there and don’t care to speculate, the following is clear; Zimmerman, called the police after seeing Martin walking up the street and described him as a black male walking slowly in the rain looking at other houses as well as him (Zimmerman). He accused Martin of acting strange like he (Martin) was on drugs because of his slow pace in the rainy weather and staring at Zimmerman while he was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher. After the dispatcher told Zimmerman that officers were on the way, Zimmerman can be heard saying that “these assholes always get away,” and ignoring advice to do nothing until the officers arrived. Some time later, one, possibly two shots were fired, Martin lay dead and police arrived on the scene to Zimmerman admitting to being the killer. Now many in the Black communities of Sanford, Florida, and the United States at large are shaking their head in wondering why Zimmerman has not been charged with anything to this point.

Now, I’ll try my best to be as objective as possible with this posting, but I’m not sure how exactly that will pan out with my feelings on the subject being what they are as well as my own professional beliefs. Yes, I am a criminal defense attorney by trade but I am also a firm believer in the biblical code of Hammurabi (eye for an eye). Unlike most people think, my responsibility is not to give leeway to the guilty but to defend the rights of the average citizen as given in the laws of this “great” nation. Believe me, I’m not writing off of pure emotion and a lot of thought and research was done before making this post.

First, I’ll ignore the fact that Martin had in his pockets $22, a can of iced tea, and a bag of skittles. Why, you may ask, because as in the case of a 20-year-old suspected drug dealer who was killed by a police officer here in New Orleans, one cannot possibly ascertain whether a person is armed or not when faced with a threat. Sure, it is easy to shift the responsibility once all the facts are presented, but as I’ve said before, I’m trying to be objective here. So like I said, we’ll ignore that one, but let us dissect the “suspicion” of Trayvon Martin. Many blog posters and their subsequent commentary focus on the category of the neighborhood in which this occurrence took place, a mainly white upper-middle class gated community so a black male walking down the street at night may in fact be suspicious to those who equate crime with people of color. However, be you black white, green, yellow, or blue, am I weird to say that I don’t see any problem with a person wearing a hoodie (hooded sweatshirt) if they are walking in the rain?

The next thing that confuses me greatly about Zimmerman not being charged as of yet is the police saying that they have found adequate evidence to support his self-defense claim. I was taught in law school that a self-defense claim did not apply to the initial aggressor unless their initial aggression was met by an escalation of aggression equating to deadly force. I thought that things may differ in Florida so I researched that issue and found Chapter 776 of the Florida Statues specifically 776.012 and 776.041 which state in pertinent part;

“776.012 Use of force in defense of person.-- the person is justified in the
use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself
or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony”

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the
preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,
unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that
he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and
that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such
danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or
great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with
the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she
desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant
continues or resumes the use of force.”

With this knowledge at my disposal, I now can go about piecing together an opinion on the subject at hand. Zimmerman said that he was using self defense when he fired that fatal shot at Martin, but I fail to understand how he felt the need to escalate his defense to deadly force on a 140lb kid absent any evidence that the kid was trying to bash in his skull with the can of iced tea, or are Skittles considered a deadly weapon in Florida? Furthermore, his initial accosting of the youth despite being warned by the 911 dispatcher not to take the law into his own hands reminds me a lot of the Joe Horn case in Pasadena, Texas. True, any requests from the dispatch order can not be taken as a direct order from law enforcement, but I do believe that it speaks volumes when considering motive.


*Side Note* Joe Horn was a 62-year old white man who shot and killed two Latino males after witnessing them break into the home of a neighbor. He called 911 and after being persuaded by the dispatcher not to involve himself in the situation can be heard on the recording of the call loading up a shotgun and telling the two men that he would shoot them if they did not stop where they were. He subsequently shot the two men in the back and was later no-billed due to Texas’ version of the Castle Law which authorizes the use of deadly force to protect one’s property as the victims were on his lawn when he shot them. However, Texas legislators have said that the Castle Law was not designed to protect the property of others, and in fact these same victims were not on Horn’s property until he confronted them.

The death of Trayvon Martin has caused much of the same split among racial lines in Florida as the Joe Horn case did in Texas. Much of the minority community is labeling Zimmerman as a racist who took the law into his own hands much beyond his position as captain of the neighborhood watch, while there are others who have praised him as a hero and feel like when the whole story is known his actions would be justified. Zimmerman’s father has even gone so far as to write a letter to the general public asking people to stop criminalizing his son because he is Latino (even though Zimmerman is a Jewish or German surname the last time I checked) and (get this) has Black friends. Isn’t that like the stereotypical argument most racists use? Sanford police have said that the evidence they have supports the self-defense theory and a few witnesses have given testimony that echoes that sentiment. They have alleged that the recent witness stories are recantations and inconsistent with earlier statements, but in my opinion, the 911 tapes, tell a different story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html). I don’t know what happened that night in February, but there has been evidence showing that Zimmerman chased after Martin, against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, he confronted him, the two wrestled, and Zimmerman shot Martin. I think that’s enough to arrest and charge him with voluntary manslaughter or even first or second-degree murder, or am I missing something here? Is justice truly blind in this country or is it only available to those fortunate enough to have a jury or in this case police department of THEIR peers?